survey of resilience and wellbeing · young people in the blue mountains scored lower than average...

Survey of Resilience and Wellbeing | Blue Mountains | Young people aged 12-19 | V4 10.07.2019 1

Survey of

Resilience and

Wellbeing Blue Mountains

Part 1: Young people aged 12-19

DRAFT Report | July 30 2019 | Version 4

Report prepared by Blue Mountains City Council for the

Stronger Families Alliance


Contents to be updated

Contents…………………………………………………………………………………………. 2

Acknowledgement of Ngurra………………………………………………………………... 3

Report highlights………………………………………………………………………………. 4

Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………….. 5

Mental wellbeing………………………………………………………………………......... 6

Resilience…………………………………………………………………………………..... 7

Methodology…………………………………………………………………………………. 8

Participant demographics…………………………………………………………………… 10

Overall Results………………………………………………………………………………… 11

Global Life Satisfaction……………………………………………………………………... 11

Personal Wellbeing Index ………………………………………………………………….. 14

Resilience ……………………………………………………………………………………. 16

Gender, subjective wellbeing, and resilience……………………………………………. 18

Age, subjective wellbeing, and resilience………………………………………………... 20

Location, subjective wellbeing, and resilience …………………………………………. 21

Summary subjective wellbeing and resilience ………………………………………….. 23

Perceived social support amongst young people in the Blue Mountains …………. 24

Community Connection…………………………………………………………………….. 28

Loneliness…………………………………………………...……………………................ 29

Stress…………………………………………………………………………………………. 33

Anxiety…………………………………………………...…………………………………… 36

General discussion……………………………………………………………………………. 40

Conclusions…………………………………………………………………………………….. 45


ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF NGURRA (COUNTRY)

The City of the Blue Mountains is located within the Country of the

Darug and Gundungurra peoples. Stronger Families Alliance recognises

that Darug and Gundungurra Traditional Owners have a continuous and

deep connection to their Country and that this is of great cultural

significance to Aboriginal people, both locally and in the region. For

Darug and Gundungurra People, Ngurra* (Country) takes in everything

within the physical, cultural and spiritual landscape - landforms, waters,

air, trees, rocks, plants, animals, foods, medicines, minerals, stories and

special places. It includes cultural practice, kinship, knowledge, songs,

stories and art, as well as spiritual beings, and people: past, present and

future. Stronger Families Alliance pays respect to Elders past and

present while recognising the strength, capacity and resilience of past

and present Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in the Blue

Mountains region.


Report Highlights

1. Subjective Wellbeing

While the overall sample mean for subjective wellbeing was in the normal range for

Australian adults, analyses reveal variations in personal wellbeing in subgroups.

Young people with above-average wellbeing:

Participate in sport/recreation

Have high access to social support when needed

Reside in Mid-Mountains

Typically gender identify as ‘male’ and

Are 12 to 13 years of age

Young people with below-average wellbeing

Have limited access to social supports when in need

Experience higher rates of loneliness

Gender identify as ‘other’

Gender identify as ‘female’

Are aged 14 to 15

Reside in the Upper Mountains

2. Overall Life Satisfaction

Young people in the Blue Mountains reported a lower average Life Satisfaction score

than the national average.

Reported overall Life Satisfaction decreased with age.

Reported life satisfaction was highest for participants who identified as ‘Male’.

3. Resilience

Young people in the Blue Mountains scored lower than average scores on

Resilience. Strengths were on the resilience domains of: seeing the humorous side

of things, adapting to change, and achieving goals.

Subgroups that reported lower resilience scores were:

Participants who gender identified as ‘Female’ and ‘Other’

Participants who reside in Lower Mountains, and

Participants aged 16-19

The key areas of vulnerability on the Resilience Scale reported by participants were:

Coping with Stress

Focusing under pressure

Discouraged by failure


4. Loneliness

Loneliness has a stronger impact on wellbeing than stress or anxiety. A quarter of

participants experience high rates of loneliness. Rates of loneliness increase as age

increases.

5. Stress

Young people in the Blue Mountains are reporting high levels of stress (40%). Levels

increased with age. Those who report less stress report higher resilience.

6. Geography

Young people residing in Mid Mountains reported more positive results overall

than young people residing in Upper or Lower Mountains

Young people residing in Upper Mountains reported lower rates of wellbeing

however higher rates of resilience.

Introduction

The Stronger Families Alliance is a collective of Government, community members

and service providers in the Blue Mountains who are committed to making the Blue

Mountains a great place for children and young people to live, go to school, and

work.

Our ultimate goal is to promote the wellbeing & resilience of children and

young people in the Blue Mountains.

The Stronger Families Alliance are in the process of developing a long term plan to

support children and young people in the Blue Mountains. The findings from The

Survey of Resilience and Wellbeing will inform part of this plan, together with other

work of the Alliance related to: child development and school readiness, parent and

family engagement, safety and resilience.

The study

The main aim of this research was to provide Stronger Families Alliance and Blue

Mountains City Council a baseline measure of the prevalence of resilience and

wellbeing amongst the Blue Mountains Community. The survey is part of a larger

body of work that Stronger Families Alliance is conducting in order to develop priority

actions and strategy for the future.


The survey

The Survey of resilience and Wellbeing was developed in order to measure the

perceived resilience and wellbeing levels of the Blue Mountains Community,

providing a baseline measure to which future action can be planned and measured.

The survey is a replication of the VicHealth study (2015), using two validated

instruments to measure wellbeing and resilience of the Blue Mountains community:

The Personal Wellbeing Index (PWI) and a shortened version of the Connor-

Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC10). The survey also asks questions on

loneliness, stress, and anxiety, and social support.

The survey was undertaken from August – November 2018.

The survey respondents predominately consisted of young people aged 12-19 (n=

2089). This was primarily due to the support from the Department Of Education,

Katoomba High School, Winmalee High School, TAFE, Blue Mountains Grammar

School, St Columba’s School, Blue Mountains City Council and other Stronger

Families Alliance members.

The findings from the study will also be shared with Blue Mountains City Council,

and used to form priorities and actions. The complete de-identified data set, and

findings will be available on the Stronger Families Alliance Website from 2019.

Mental Wellbeing

Positive mental health or wellbeing is a dynamic state of internal equilibrium in which

people enjoy life, are able to realise and develop their own potential, work

productively and creatively, build strong and positive relationships and can contribute

to their community (Adapted from VicHealth 2015, WHO 2014, World Psychiatric

Association 2015)

Subjective Wellbeing

Subjective wellbeing provides an indication of how people feel, think and report

about their own lives and personal circumstances. The term subjective wellbeing

was first introduced by Diener (1984) as a means of identifying the field of

psychology that attempts to understand people’s evaluations of their quality of life

(Proctor, 2014).


Governments, Schools, Community organisations and other agencies nationally and

internationally are increasingly acknowledging the importance of looking beyond

traditional measures of successful communities such as the GDP. Measures of

subjective wellbeing provide key information about quality of life, and how individuals

feel about the society that they live. Governments are also increasingly using this

tool to develop, measure and evaluate programs.

Measurement of subjective wellbeing

In this survey, subjective wellbeing was measured using a scientifically validated

instrument known as the Personal Wellbeing Index. Two versions of this instrument

were used: The Personal Wellbeing Index –Adult (PWI-A), and the Personal

Wellbeing Index – School Children (PWI-SC). The PWI scale contains seven items

of satisfaction, each one corresponding to a quality of life domain as: standard of

living, health, achieving in life, relationships, safety, community-connectedness, and

future security. The adult normative range for subjective personal wellbeing is

between 73.9 and 76.7 points. The average Personal Wellbeing Index score

nationwide is 75.7.

This scale has been used successfully by a number of Government, and other

agencies including VicHealth, City of Sydney Council, Department of Family and

Community Services and NSW Health. The instrument is recommended by the

World Health Organisation (WHO) and the organisation for Economic Co-operation

and Development (OEDC) as a reliable tool to measure wellbeing as a specific

outcome, as opposed to inferring wellbeing from the absence of mental illness

(VicHealth 2015, WHO 2014).

Resilience

Resilience can be defined as coping in the face of adversity. It is the capacity to work

through and recover from negative events. It is a dynamic quality that develops over

time through the interaction between people and their environment.

The measurement of resilience is not as well advanced as the measurement of

wellbeing. By most definitions, resilience can only be demonstrated in the face of

adversity. This makes the ethical exploration of resilience problematic. Instead,

measures usually approximate actual resilience by capturing ‘perceived resilience’,


or by having participants rate their level of agreement with statements that typically

describe resilient people (VicHealth 2015).

Measurement of Resilience

In this survey, perceived resilience was measured using a shortened version of the

Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC) (Connor-Davidson, 2003). The brief

CD-RISC 10 developed by Campbell-Sills and Stein (2007) is recognised as a

reliable and valid scale for a young adult audience and is designed to measure the

ability to cope with stress. This scale has been used by a number of agencies

including VicHealth (2015), Universities, Health Services across the world, and the

Australian Cricket Team (Gucciardi et al, 2011).

Methodology

The study was approved by the Department of Education Ethics Committee which is

accountable to the national Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC).

The study was undertaken by Stronger Families Alliance. The project was led by

Blue Mountains City Council Social Researcher, Community Development with

generous collaboration from the Department of Education, Mountains Community

Resource Network, Blue Mountains City Council and Stronger Families Alliance

member organisations.

In total 2595 participants aged 12 years and over completed the survey. Of these

80.5% (n=2089) were aged 12-19 years. The Survey was undertaken from August –

November 2018. It was conducted in four Secondary Schools across the Blue

Mountains (a mix of location, public and private) and at TAFE Blue Mountains

Campus. The survey was also available online via Blue Mountains Have Your Say

Platform, and was available in hard copy at a number of locations across the Blue

Mountains including libraries, neighbourhood centres, and other community centres.

Data entry was provided by Mountains Community Resource Network and was

funded by Blue Mountains City Council.


Data cleaning, de-identification, aggregation and analysis was completed by Social

Researcher, Blue Mountains City Council.

Personal Wellbeing Index and Resilience Scores are the average sum of scores in

each question in the scale. Participants were given opportunity to choose ‘I don’t

now’ or ‘I don’t understand’ as an answer. If either ‘I don’t know’ or ‘I don’t

understand’ was chosen more than three times, the total Wellbeing/Resilience score

was omitted.

Significance testing: Data was analysed at the significance level of p<0.05, unless

otherwise stated.

Standardisation: All PWI data have been converted to a percentage of scale

maximum (%SM) score which transforms the 0-10 scale response data into

standardised 0-100 percentage point scale. The PWI user manual (IWG 2013) offers

the following formula for calculating the %SM statistic:

Throughout the report, comparisons with national data is available. The average

Personal Wellbeing Index data is nationwide and not age specific. The Average

Resilience data is from Victorian youths aged 16-25. With this in mind caution shold

be taken when comparing Blue Mountains average scores with national wellbeing

scores, and Victorian resilience scores.

This report will be presenting results from participants aged 12-19 years. Sample

characteristics are presented in Table 1.


Table 1: participant demographics

Variable N %

Gender Male 991 47.4

Female 1015 48.5 Other 65 3.1 Blank 20 1.0

Indigenous descent

Yes 105 5.0

No 1959 93.8 Blank 25 1.2

Age 12 228 10.9

13 428 20.5 14 396 19.0 15 352 16.9 16 267 12.8 17 261 12.5 18 107 5.1 19 5 0.2 Blank 27 1.3

Other 18 0.9

Year Level 7 453 21.7 8 439 21.0 9 345 16.5 10 355 17.0 11 220 10.5 12 244 11.7 Blank 33 1.6

Work Status Not working 1244 59.6

Part Time 289 13.8 Casual 443 21.2 Blank 113 5.4

Household Composition

Lives with one or more of parents 1861 89.1

With one or more adults who are not partner or

parents

70

3.4 Other 137 6.6 Blank 21 1.0

Region Upper Mountains 566 27.1 Mid Mountains 540 25.8 Lower Mountains 610 29.2 Outside of the Blue Mountains 139 6.7


Location not specified 234 11.2

Social Group

Sport or physical recreation group

1196

57.3 Religious or other spiritual group or organisation 188 9.0 Special Interest of Hobby group 452 21.6 Ethnic or multicultural club 30 1.4 Social club or group through school / Uni / TAFE 157 7.5 Online group or community 329 15.7 Not involved in an organised group 431 20.6

Wellbeing category

High Risk (0-50) 140 6.7

Challenged (51-69) 469 22.5

Normal (70+)

1464 70.1

Nil score 16 0.8

Results

The first question in the Wellbeing scale is the Global Life Satisfaction (GLS) Tool:

“How happy are you with your life as a whole?” participants were asked to rate their

happiness with life as a whole on a scale of 0-10 (0=very sad and 10 = very happy)

The average score was 69.3 out of 100 (95% CI 6.7 to 7). The average score

nationwide is 73 (OECD 2017). Note that national data is not age specific, so

comparison should be approached with caution.

69

73

60

62

64

66

68

70

72

74

Blue Mountains Nationwide

STR

ENG

TH O

F SA

TISF

AC

TIO

N


Young people in the Blue Mountains reported a lower average GLS score than the

national average.

Gender

Participants who gender identified as ‘Other’ had the lowest average GLS score

(52.6), followed by participants identifying as ‘Female’ (67.7). Participants who

identified as ‘Male’ scored an average of (72).

The findings indicate that gender has an influence on overall happiness with life. The

difference in scores between three options were highly significant (p<0.001).

Figure 1 shows the average GLS scores of participants who identified as ‘Male’,

‘Female’, and ‘Other’.

Location

Young people residing in Mid-Mountains scored the highest average score for overall

life satisfaction (72 points). This is still 1 point below the national average. Figure 2

presents average scores for Upper, Mid, and Lower Blue Mountains. The difference

7267.7

52.6

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

Male Female Other

STR

ENG

TH O

F SA

TISF

AC

TIO

N

GENDER

Average score nationwide is 73

Figure 2 Average Life Satisfaction for each gender

Figure 1 Average Life Satisfaction scores in the Blue Mountains and Nationwide


in scores between Upper and both Mid and Lower Mountains is statistically

significant (p<0.05). The difference in scores between Mid and Lower Mountains is

not significant.

Figure 3: Overall Life Satisfaction scores per region

Age

Participants aged 12-13 reported the highest average life satisfaction score (74

points). This was 1 point above the national average. Overall life satisfaction appears

to decline as age increases. Figure 3 presents average life satisfaction scores for

each age group. The differences in scores in each age group is highly significant (p <

0.001).

67

72

70

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

Upper Mountains Mid Mountains Lower Mountains

Stre

ngt

h o

f sa

tisf

acti

on

Place of residence



Figure 4 Overall Life satisfaction in each age group

Personal Wellbeing Index (PWI)

The next set of questions asked participants to nominate how satisfied / happy they

felt with particular aspects of their life on a scale of 0 – 10 (0= very sad / not satisfied

at all and 10= very happy/satisfied). These scores have been converted to a

percentage of scale maximum (%SM) score which transforms the 0-10 scale

response data into standardised 0-100 percentage point scale.

The questions in the Personal Wellbeing Index (School Children) are:

1. How happy are you about the things you have, like the money you have and the

things you own?

2. How happy are you with your health?

3. How happy are you with the things you want to be good at?

4. How happy are you about getting on with the people you know?

5. How happy are you with how safe you feel?

6. How happy are you doing things away from home?

7. How happy are you with what may happen to you later on in life?

Figure 4 shows average subjective/personal wellbeing (represented by ‘PWI’) and

average scores on each of the domains (represented in the questions above) that

make up the Personal Wellbeing Index. The red line represent average scores for

Australian adults (VicHealth 2015). Further detail can be seen in Figure 5.

74

68

67

62

64

66

68

70

72

74

76

12 to 13 14 to 15 16 to 19

Stre

nth

of

sati

sfac

tio

n

Age groups



Figure 5 Average scores across personal Wellbeing Index domains

PWI domains Average Scores Average Scores

nationally

Personal Wellbeing 75.2 75

1. Standard of Living 78.6 78

2. Health 71.6 75

3. Currently achieving 69.8 74

4. Personal relationships 77.4 79

5. Safety 80.2 79

6. Part of the community 78.4 71

7. Future Security 70.7 71

Figure 6 comparative scores for Personal Wellbeing Index domains

With 95% confidence the Personal Wellbeing Index mean score of young people in

the Blue Mountains is between 75 and 75.2, based on 2089 samples. Average

subjective wellbeing among young people in the Blue Mountains is in the normal

range for the general population of Australia (between 73.9 and 76.7 points).

Examination of average domain scores reveal the high score on ‘safety’ (80.2).

Young people in the Blue Mountains appear to be highly satisfied with how safe they

feel. This score in in the average range for Australian adults (75.8-82.4).

64

66

68

70

72

74

76

78

80

82

Personal Wellbeing

1. Standard of Living

2. Health 3. Currently achieving

4. Personal relationships

5. Safety 6. Part of the community

7. Future Security

STR

ENG

TH O

F SA

TISF

AC

TIO

N

PERSONAL WELLBEING INDEX DOMAINS

Average Scores National Average Scores


The high score on Community Connection (78.4) is much higher than the Australian

average (68.85-73.4).

The low scores for ‘Achieving in Life’, ‘Future security’, and ‘health’ highlight potential

areas of vulnerability amongst young people in the Blue Mountains, and could

indicate a level of anxiety within the population about the future, particularly climate

change, job insecurity, house prices and other economic pressures. Further research

may be useful to explore what area of ‘health’ participants were not happy with.

Measuring Resilience using the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale

10.

In order to measure resilience, the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale 10 (CD RISC

10) was used, a recognised, reliable and valid scale to measure the ability to cope

with stress and adversity. The measure asks participants to answer how true they

feel about their capacities on an 11 point scale (0=not true at all, 10=extremely true).

The questions on this scale are:

The average score for the CD-RISC 10 amongst young people in the Blue Mountains

(68 points) is lower than the average score for young people in Victoria (75.42)

(VicHealth 2015). A strong relationship was found between Personal Wellbeing

Index scores and resilience scores (p<0.001).

Figure 6 displays average scores for each item (questions above) on the CD-RISC

10 scale.

1. I am able to adapt to change

2. I can deal with whatever comes

3. I can see the humorous side of things

4. Coping with stress can strengthen me

5. I tend to bounce back after illness or hardship

6. I can achieve goals despite obstacles or things that might block my way

7. I can stay focused under pressure

8. I am not easily discouraged by failure

9. I think of myself as a strong person

10. I can handle unpleasant feelings


Figure 7 Average scores for each of the Resilience Domains

As shown, the highest average score for the CD-RISC 10 was item was item 3 “I see

the humorous side of things”, followed by item 1 “I am able to adapt to change” and

item 6 “I can achieve my goals despite obstacles that might block my way”. These

items lend support to the idea that humour may serve an adaptive function.

The lowest average score were for item 4 “Coping with stress can strengthen me”,

item 7 “I can stay focused under pressure” and item 8 “I am not easily discouraged

by failure”. This may be an indicator of stress levels of young people, and perceived

pressure of achieving.

73.2

68.7

79.7

58.3

69.8 70.4

61 61.7

68.1

64.6

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85%

TR

UE


Gender, wellbeing and resilience

There is a large association between Gender, Personal Wellbeing Index scores and

Resilience scores (p<0.001, d= 0.68). The data shows that both scores on personal

wellbeing and resilience differs between participants who gender identified as ‘male’,

‘female’ and ‘other’.

Figure 8 Average scores for subjective wellbeing, resilience and gender

The data reveals that participants gender identifying as ‘male’ scored much higher

levels of both personal wellbeing and resilience.

Subjective wellbeing categories and gender

Subjective wellbeing categories: High risk (scores between 0-50), Challenged

(scores between 51-69), and Normal range (scores 70+) were correlated with gender

and were found to be highly significant (p<0.001). Figure 6 below displays the

proportion of participants who gender identify as male, female and other categorised

into the normal, challenged or high-risk group, based on their overall PWI score.

73.9

77.2

61.9

65.5

71.2

57.8

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

Female Male Other

WEL

LBEI

NG

AN

D R

ESIL

IEN

CE

%

PWI Resilience

Average Personal Wellbeing Index Score nationwide is 75.7

Average Resilience Score for young

people aged 16-25 in Victoria is 75.42


Figure 9 Percentage of Gender in each PWI category

76.7 percent of those who gender identified as male scored in the normal range for

subjective wellbeing, compared to 65.4 percent of female, and 52.4 percent of those

who gender identified as other.

The findings show that participants identifying as female were almost 50 percent

more likely than those identifying as male to be at ‘high risk’ of depression. Those

who identified as ‘other’ were 5 times more likely than those who identified as male

to be at high risk of depression. These findings suggest a greater vulnerability

among young people in the Blue Mountains who identify as ‘female’ and ‘other’.

8.0% 4.5%23.8%

26.6%

18.8%

23.8%

65.4%

76.7%

52.4%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Female Male Other

% o

f P

arti

cip

ants

0-50 (High Risk) 51-69 (Challenged) 70+ (Normal)


Age, subjective wellbeing, and resilience

The relationship between age and wellbeing scores, and age and resilience scores

was statistically significant (p<0.001). Figure 10 presents average subjective

wellbeing and resilience scores for young people in the Blue Mountains, split into

three age groups (12-13, 14-15, 16-19).

Figure 10 Average scores for Wellbeing and Resilience in each age group

Average wellbeing scores were highest for participants aged 12 and 13 (78.8).

Average subjective wellbeing scores for participants aged 14 and over reduced to

73.7 and 73.9 respectively. Average resilience increased for participants aged 14

and 15, and dropped again for participants aged 16 to 19.

Figure 11 displays the proportion of young people in each age group categorised into

the normal, challenged or high risk group, based on their overall PWI score.

78.8

73.7 73.9

67.1

70

66.1

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

12 to 13 14 to 15 16 to 19

AV

ERA

GE

WEL

LBEI

NG

AN

D R

ESIL

IEN

CE

SCO

RES

AGE GROUPSPWI Resilience


Average Resilience Score

for young people in Victoria aged

16-25 is 75.42


Figure 11 PWI categories for each age group

The data suggests that from the age of 14, young people are more likely to be at risk

of low mental wellbeing and depression.

Location, Subjective Wellbeing and Resilience

Figure 12 presents average subjective wellbeing and resilience scores for Upper,

Middle and Lower Blue Mountains. Average scores for subjective wellbeing are

relatively even across the Blue Mountains. Upper Mountains has a slightly lower

average for subjective wellbeing (73.7%) compared to Mid Mountains (77.4%) and

Lower Mountains (76.3%).

5.8% 8.0% 6.0%

14.5%23.2% 25.0%

78.7%66.2% 65.3%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

12 to 13 14 to 15 16 to 19

Per

cen

tage

of

par

tici

pan

ts



Figure 12 Average scores for Wellbeing and Resilience in Blue Mountains regions

Average scores for resilience are significantly higher in the Upper Mountains (74.4%)

compared to Mid Mountains (67.6%) and Lower Mountains (65.7%). This is despite

scoring lower in average subjective wellbeing.

Figure 13 presents the portion of Upper, Mid and Lower Mountains categorised into

the normal, challenged or high risk group, based on their overall PWI score. Those

who resided in the Upper Mountains are twice as likely to be at high risk of low

mental wellbeing and depression than those residing in the Mid Mountains.

Participants who reside in Mid-Mountains have the highest average scores in the

Normal (70+) range.

76.377.4

73.7

65.7

67.6

74.4

58

60

62

64

66

68

70

72

74

76

78

80

Lower Mountains Mid Mountains Upper Mountains

AV

ERA

GE

WEL

LBEI

NG

AN

D R

ESIL

IEN

CE

SCO

RES

PWI Resilience


Average Resilience Score for young people in Victoria is 75.42


Figure 13: PWI categories in Blue Mountains regions

Wellbeing and Resilience:

Wellbeing

Although Wellbeing for young people in the Blue Mountains is in the normative range

for Australian adult population, there are key groups that report vulnerability to low

mental wellbeing. These include:

Participants who gender identify as ‘Female’ and ‘Other’

Participants who reside in Upper Blue Mountains, and


The key areas of vulnerability on the Wellbeing Scale reported by participants were:

Achieving in Life / Things that participants want to be good at

Future Security, and

Health

Resilience

5.6% 3.7% 7.6%

20.8% 21.7%23.3%

72.5% 73.5%66.4%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Lower Mountains Mid Mountains Upper Mountains

Per

cen

tage

of

par

tici

pan

ts



Reported scores using the Resilience Measure (CD-RISC 10) were lower than the

Victorian average as reported by Victoria Health (2015). The average Resilience

Score across all participants was 68. The Victorian average for young people was

75.

Subgroups that reported lower resilience scores were:

Participants who gender identified as ‘Female’ and ‘Other’

Participants who reside in Lower Mountains, and


The key areas of vulnerability on the Resilience Scale reported by participants were:

Coping with Stress

Focusing under pressure

Not being discouraged by failure

Perceived social support amongst young people in the Blue

Mountains

The final component of the Survey of Resilience and Wellbeing asked participants

about the support they had around them.

The first question was: “Can you get help from friends, family or neighbours when

needed?” Sixty percent of young people in the Blue Mountains responded “yes

definitely” to this question.

Figure 14 Social support, getting help from friends, family, neighbours

60.1%

27.7%

5.9%2.2%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Yes definitly Sometimes Rarely Not at all

% O

F P

AR

TIC

IPA

NTS

CAN YOU GET HELP FROM FRIENDS, FAMILY OR NEIGHBOURS WHEN NEEDED?


For those without perceived social supports, resilience and wellbeing scores

decrease. Figure 14 presents average subjective wellbeing scores for young people

in the Blue Mountains according to their perception that they can get help from

family, friends or neighbours when in need.

The data found that average subjective wellbeing and resilience scores decrease the

less likely participants can get help from their networks. This highlights vulnerability

amongst young people who have limited access to social supports.

Figure 15 Link between reported Social Support and Average Wellbeing and Resilience scores

Participants were asked about their satisfaction levels with the support they receive

from their friends, family and neighbours. It is clear that young people rely on the

support they receive from their friends and family over their neighbours

How satisfied do you feel with the support you receive from your:

1. Friends average score = 7 out of 10

2. Family average score = 8 out of 10

3. Neighbours average score = 4 out of 10

80.1

70.9

58.1

51.3

72.7

62.7

50.8 50.4

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

Yes, Definitely Sometimes Rarely Not at all

WEL

LBEI

NG

AN

D R

ESIL

IEN

CE

%

CAN YOU GET HELP FROM FRIENDS, FAMILY OR NEIGHBOURS WHEN NEEDED?

PWI Resilience


Average Resilience Score for young people in Victoria is 75.42


Participants were then asked to include three words to describe their friends, family

and community. From all responses the words that were said the most frequently

were, or stemmed from the word “support”

1. Friends

Participants described their friends as ‘supportive’ ‘loving’ ‘funny’ and ‘fun’. Table 2

displays the associations of words used by young people in the Blue Mountains to

describe their friends

Table 2: Words used to describe ‘friends.’

Word Count Weighted

Percentage (%) Similar Words

supportive 581 8.48 admirable, back, booster, care, encourage,

encouraging, friend, friendly, friends, help,

helpful, helping, helps, lovely, part, play, rest,

show, support, supporting, supportive, tick

loving 468 4.32 beautiful, caring, enjoyable, enjoyment, know,

like, love, loveable, loved, lovely, loves, loving,

loyalty, mate, passionate, take

humorous 780 3.62 amusing, banter, come, comedy, fun, funny,

hilarious, humorous, humour, humouring,

humourous, ironic, joke, joking, laugh, play

funny 768 3.28 amusing, comedy, fun, funny, humorous,

humourous, ill, joke, laugh, odd, play, sick,

strange, unusual

strange 527 2.74 crazy, fantastic, funny, odd, strange, unusual,

weird

Table 2: Friends

2. Family

Participants described their family as ‘supportive’ ‘loving’ and ‘caring.’ Table 3

displays the associations of words used by young people in the Blue Mountains to

describe their family

Word Count Weighted


supportive 628 10.21 blessing, care, encouraging, enthusiast, fit,

friendly, friends, give, help, helpful, helping, keep,

live, living, lovely, man, mother, okay, protection,

support, supportful, supporting, supportive,

supports, sustained, tick, tolerable


loving 1213 7.95 beautiful, caring, enjoyable, fucked, fucking, know,

like, lovable, love, loveable, loved, loveing, lovely,

loves, loving, loyalty, mate, passionate

lovers 659 4.74 enthusiast, love, lovers, loving, man, steady

amore 656 4.73 amore, love, loving

caring 631 3.29 care, careing, caring, close, compassionate, give,

help, like, love, make, mother, protection,

protective, put, sure, want, work, worried

Table 3: Family

3. Community

Participants described their community as ‘supportive’ ‘good’ ‘friendly’ and ‘caring’.

Table 4 displays the associations of words used by young people in the Blue

Mountains to describe their community.

Word Length Count Weighted


supportive 10 341 3.65 associate, back, care, encouraging, give, help,

helpful, helping, helps, live, lively, look, lovely,

man, okay, page, rest, standing, subscribe,

support, supporting, supportive

good 4 521 3.30 better, blue, close, cracking, full, good,

goodness, great, healthy, honest, honestly,

intellectual, interest, just, kindness, near, nice,

respect, respectful, respecting, right, safe, secure,

well, white

friendly 8 324 3.08 associate, brother, friendly, friends, mate,

neighbourly, social, support, supporting,

supportive

loving 6 210 1.88 beautiful, caring, enjoyable, enjoys, like, love,

lovely, loving, passionate, warm

caring 6 231 1.76 aware, care, careing, cares, caring, close,

compassionate, give, help, like, likes, look, love,

make, narrow, run, sure, tend, want, work

Table 4: Community

Participants used words related to support to describe their friends, family and

community. Participants used words such as funny, fun and humour to describe their

friends, however not their family. The majority of comments seemed positive, relating

to the words love, care and support.


Community Connection – Organised social or sporting group

Participants were also asked if they belonged to any social clubs, groups or

organisations. Almost three quarters of participants (73%) reported that they

belonged to at least one such group, with most (57%) associating with a sport or

physical recreation group. membership of sporting or recreation groups decrease

across all genders as participants age. Figure 15 presents this trend.

Figure 16: Percentage of age and gender as members of sporting/recreation group

As participants get older, they are less likely to be a member of a sporting /

recreation group. This is most prominent for participants gender identifying as

Female, with a decline of more than 50% from the 66.5% participation rate at age

12-13.

Belonging to a sport of physical activity group was associated with higher average

wellbeing scores (78.3) and higher average resilience scores (70.1) than those who

did not belong to a sporting or physical activity group. (PWI: 70.9, CD RISC 10:

62.8).

12 to 13 14 to 15 16 to 19

Male 65.8% 66.4% 36.2%

Female 66.5% 68.9% 29.0%

Other 58.3% 52.0% 47.4%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

PER

CEN

TAG

E O

F A

PR

TIC

IPA

NTS

Male Female Other


Loneliness, stress, anxiety

Respondents were asked three questions regarding how lonely, stressed and

anxious they generally feel using an 11 point, end defined scale ranging from 0 (Not

at all) to 10 (Extremely). These scores were grouped together in order to consider

the relationship between levels of subjective wellbeing and loneliness (0-3, 4-6 and

7-10).

Loneliness

The Data shows that 42% of participants scored low levels of loneliness (between 0-

3) whilst 27.4% scored high levels of loneliness (between 7 and 10).

Figure 16 Percentage of Participants in each loneliness category

Participants who identified as ‘female’ and ‘other’ scored higher levels of loneliness

than those who identified as ‘male’. 43% of participants gender identifying as ‘Other’

reported very high rates of loneliness. 1 in 3 participants gender identifying as

‘Female’ reported very high rates of loneliness.

42.0%

26.3%27.4%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

0 to 3 4 to 6 7 to 10

% O

F P

AR

TIC

IPA

NTS

HOW LONELY DO YOU GENERALLY FEEL? (0=NOT AT ALL, 10 = EXTREMELY)


Figure 17 Gender and loneliness

The findings from the survey also suggest that participants’ levels of loneliness

increased as age increased.

Figure 18 Loneliness levels across age groups

49.5%

24.8% 22.9%

36.7%

28.4%31.3%

21.5%26.2%

43.1%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

0 to 3 4 to 6 7 to 10

GEN

DER

%

HOW LONELY DO YOU GENERALLY FEEL? (0=NOT AT ALL, 10= EXTREMELY)

Loneliness and gender

Male Female Other

12 to 13 14 to 15 16 to 19

0 to 3 52.0% 39.9% 36.4%

4 to 6 21.1% 22.8% 23.2%

7 to 10 16.8% 25.1% 28.9%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

0 to 3 4 to 6 7 to 10


The findings show that 1 in 3 young people aged 16-19, and 1 in 4 young people

aged 14-15 are experiencing high rates of loneliness.

Figure 19 Levels of loneliness in regions of Blue Mountains

Young people across the Blue Mountains are experiencing loneliness. Figure 19

presents the spread of loneliness in Upper, Mid, and Lower Blue Mountains. In all

three regions, between 1 in 3, and 1 in 4 young people are currently experiencing

high rates of loneliness.

There is a strong relationship loneliness and wellbeing. Figure 20 presents average

personal wellbeing scores (represented on the vertical axis) for each corresponding

loneliness category score (represented on the horizontal axis).

For participants who reported loneliness scores between 0 and 3, their average

subjective wellbeing, and resilience scores are quite high (82 and 74.4). This

decreases as participants report higher levels of loneliness. For participants who

reported loneliness scores of between 7 and 10, their average personal wellbeing

score drops to 67.1. This is suggested by VicHealth (2015) as in the High Risk

0 to 3 4 to 6 7 to 10

Upper 39.8% 27.2% 29.0%

Mid 45.6% 28.5% 23.3%

Lower 44.4% 24.8% 28.5%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

% O

F P

AR

TIC

IPA

NTS

Upper Mid Lower


category. The results indicate that individuals who express higher levels of loneliness

are at a much higher risk of vulnerability to low mental wellbeing and depression.

This result is concerning considering that over a quarter of participants scored in 7-

10 range, and those who are most represented in this range:

identify their gender as ‘female’ and ‘other’

reside in Upper Mountains

are aged 16-19

82

72.7

67.1

74.4

63.5

60.7

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

0 to 3 4 to 6 7 to 10

PW

I AN

D R

ESIL

IEN

CE

AV

ERA

GE

SCO

RES

HOW LONELY DO YOU GENERALLY FEEL? (0=NOT AT ALL, 10=EXTREMELY)

PWI Resilience

Average Resilience score for young people in Victoria is

75.42


Figure 20 Link between loneliness, resilience and wellbeing


Stress

Contrasted to loneliness scores, participants rated their stress levels as much higher.

Almost 40% of participants rated their stress levels between 7 and 10 out of 10.

Figure 21: percentage of participants in each stress category

Gender and stress

Participants gender identifying as ‘female’ and ‘other’ scored very high levels of

stress compared with those identifying as ‘male’.

Figure 22: Percentage of Gender in each stress category

27.9% 28.9%

39.1%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

0 to 3 4 to 6 7 to 10

% O

F P

AR

TIC

IPA

NTS

HOW STRESSED DO YOU GENERALLY FEEL? 0 = NOT ALL ALL, 10 = EXTREMELY

36.9%

30.7%29.3%

20.1%

28.2%

48.7%

20.0% 20.0%

49.2%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

0 to 3 4 to 6 7 to 10

GEN

DER

%

HOW STRESSED DO YOU GENERALLY FEEL? (0=NOT AT ALL, 10=EXTREMELY)

Male Female Other


Almost half of participants gender identifying as female and other scored stress

levels of between 7 and 10 out of 10. Just under a third of participants who gender

identified as male scored high stress levels.

Figure 23 Percentage of age in each stress category

As participants get older, their stress levels increase, as seen in figure 23. Over 50%

of participants aged 16-19, and over a third of participants aged 14-15 are

experiencing high levels of stress.

12 to 13 14 to 15 16 to 19

0 to 3 36.5% 28.4% 19.3%

4 to 6 30.9% 30.5% 27.8%

7 to 10 28.9% 39.1% 50.5%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Per

cen

tage

of

Par

tici

pan

ts

0 to 3 4 to 6 7 to 10


Figure 24 Levels of Stress in regions of Blue Mountains

A large portion participants in all regions of the Mountains are experiencing high

levels of stress, as seen in figure 24. Participants residing in Upper and Lower

Mountains are reporting higher instances of stress than participants residing in Mid-

Mountains.

Stress, Wellbeing and Resilience

The data indicates that young people experiencing high rates of stress are at risk of

low mental wellbeing, as seen in Figure 25. At stress score of between 0 and 6,

average subjective wellbeing is in the “normal” range. At scores of 7 – 10, average

subjective wellbeing falls into the ‘high risk’ range. Just over 39% of participants

scored 7-10 for this question, placing them at higher risk for low wellbeing and

depression.

Participants who reported low levels of stress (between 0-3), scored higher on

resilience (76 points), and above the average Victorian resilience score of 75 points.

0 to 3 4 to 6 7 to 10

Upper 27.4% 27.0% 41.3%

Mid 30.6% 30.6% 36.9%

Lower 26.4% 31.5% 40.2%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%%

OF

PA

RTI

CIP

AN

TS

Upper Mid Lower


Figure 25 Link between wellbeing, resilience and stress

Anxiety

Just over 36% of participants scored in the high range for anxiety (between 7 and

10). Results across all three categories were similar (see figure below)

Figure 26: percentage of participants in each anxious category

82.5

75.6

69.7

76.4

67.1

61.4

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

0 to 3 4 to 6 7 to 10

PW

I AN

D R

ESIL

IEN

CE

AV

ERA

GE

SCO

RES

HOW STRESSED DO YOU GENERALLY FEEL? (0=NOT AT ALL, 10=EXTREMELY)

PWI Resilience

32.1%

25.9%

36.8%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

0 to 3 4 to 6 7 to 10

% O

F P

AR

TIC

IPA

NTS

HOW ANXIOUS DO YOU GENERALLY FEEL? 0= NOT AT ALL, 10 = EXTREMELY


Average Resilience

score for young people in Victoria

is 75.42


Gender and anxiety

The data suggests that young people identifying as ‘female’ are almost twice as

likely to report higher levels of anxiety then participants identifying as ‘male’. Over

50% of participants who identified as ‘other’ scored high levels of anxiety.

Figure 27 Gender in each anxiety category

Similarly to loneliness and stress, the data suggests that young people are

experiencing higher rates of anxiety as age increases, see figure 28. Almost 1 in 2

young people aged 16-19, and almost 1 in 3 young people aged 12-13 are

experiencing high levels of anxiety. For young people aged 14-15, almost 40%

reported feeling highly anxious.

41.8%

28.6%25.6%24.5%

24.2%

47.2%

13.8%18.5%

55.4%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

0 to 3 4 to 6 7 to 10

GEN

DER

%

HOW ANXIOUS DO YOU GENERALLY FEEL? (0=NOT AT ALL, 10=EXTREMELY)

Male Female Other


Figure 28 Levels of anxiety in each age group

Figure 29 Anxiety and region

12 to 13 14 to 15 16 to 19

0 to 3 41.6% 32.6% 23.4%

4 to 6 26.1% 26.1% 27.3%

7 to 10 27.1% 37.9% 46.6%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%%

of

par

tici

pan

ts

0 to 3 4 to 6 7 to 10

0 to 3 4 to 6 7 to 10

Upper 31.4% 23.0% 40.5%

Mid 34.6% 26.5% 35.4%

Lower 22.8% 29.5% 35.7%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

% O

F P

AR

TIC

IPA

NTS

Upper Mid Lower


Participants are reporting high average rates of anxiety across all regions of the Blue

Mountains, particularly Upper Mountains, where 40.5% of young people are

reporting that they are highly anxious..

Similarly to loneliness and stress, high levels of anxiety can contribute to low

wellbeing and resilience.

Figure 30 presents average subjective wellbeing and resilience scores for each

corresponding anxiety category score.

Figure 30 Link between wellbeing, resilience and anxiety

At anxiety scores between 0 and 6, average subjective wellbeing is in the ‘normal’

range. Scores of between 7 and 10 correspond with lower levels of both subjective

wellbeing and resilience. Once the general feelings of anxiety reach 7, average

subjective wellbeing falls into the ‘high risk’ range, placing the 37 percent of young

people who scored between 7 and 10 points at a higher risk of low wellbeing and

depression.

Participants who reported low levels of anxiety (between 0-3), scored higher on

resilience (76 points), and above the average Victorian resilience score of 75 points.

82.7

75.5

68.7

76.3

67.8

60

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

0 to 3 4 to 6 7 to 10

PW

I AN

D R

ESIL

IEN

CE

AV

ERA

GE

SCO

RES

HOW ANXIOUS DO YOU GENERALLY FEEL? (0=NOT AT ALL, 10=EXTREMELY)

PWI Resilience

Average Resilience score

for young people in

Victoria is 75.42



Loneliness as more detrimental to wellbeing?

The data suggests that general feelings of loneliness may be more detrimental to

person wellbeing than general feelings of stress or anxiety. The relationship between

loneliness, stress and anxiety, and resilience is very similar.

Participants identifying as ‘female’ and ‘other’ scored much higher in loneliness,

stress, and anxiety, suggesting that participants identifying as ‘female’ or ‘other’ who

experience high levels of loneliness, stress, and/or anxiety are at a much higher risk

of low wellbeing and depression.

The data indicates participants are reporting much higher instances of Loneliness,

Stress and Anxiety as they get older. The increase is much higher for the domains

of Stress and Anxiety.

General discussion

Study aims

To provide Stronger Families Alliance with a baseline measure of the

prevalence of resilience and mental wellbeing among young people in the

Blue Mountains.

To provide Stronger Families Alliance (including Blue Mountains City Council,

The Department of Education, and other Alliance members) with data on the

resilience and wellbeing of young people in the Blue Mountains, in order to

plan for future action, resource and strategy.

Overall results for subjective wellbeing

The results suggest that the present sample of young people in the Blue

Mountains can be considered a ‘normal’ sample, experiencing levels of

personal wellbeing comparable to those of Australia’s mainstream adult

population.

70% of young people scored in the normal range (70+ points). This is

5.5% lower than the VicHealth study (2015).


22.5% and 6.7% of young people respectively scored in the ‘challenged’

and ‘high risk’ ranges for personal wellbeing suggesting that just under

30% of young people in the Blue Mountains are likely to be more

vulnerable to depression.

Average scores on the interpersonal PWI domains of ‘Achieving in life,’ ‘Future

security’ and ‘health’.

Lower scores on the three interpersonal domains of ‘Achieving in life’ ‘Future

security’ and ‘health’ highlight potential vulnerability among young people in

the Blue Mountains.

The lower score on the domain ‘health’ is contrary to the findings of the

VicHealth Report (2015) and warrants further exploration.

The lower scores may be reflective of a general discontentment and anxiety

among young people in the Blue Mountains. This may be an area of further

exploration

Young people in the Blue Mountains scored above the normal range on the PWI

domains of ‘Safety’ ‘Standard of living’ and ‘Community connection’

The findings that young people scored above the normal ranges on the

domain of ‘safety’ is encouraging

A higher than average for ‘standard of living’ is not surprising considering that

the majority of young people who participated in this survey live with one or

more of their parents (89%).

A higher than average score for ‘community connection’ is interesting and

contrasts to the findings of the VicHealth study (2015). This correlates with the

words used to describe friends, family and community by participants of this

study. The vast majority of words were in relation to ‘support’.

Overall results for resilience using the The Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale –10 (

CD-RISC 10)

Average scores for Resilience for young people in the Blue Mountains using

the CD-RISC 10 were below the average for their peers in Victoria (68 points

compared with 75 points in Victoria).


Participants scored highest on the CD-RISC 10 items related to ‘humour’,

‘adapting to change’ and ‘achieving goals’

The high average scores on these items reflects a sense of confidence within

young people, and confirms that humour could be a successful indicator of

resilience in young people in the Blue Mountains.

Participants scored lowest on CD-RISC items 4 ‘coping with stress can

strengthen me’ and ‘I can stay focused under pressure’. This correlates with

the findings from this study that young people are experiencing high rates of

stress and anxiety, (39% and 37% respectively)and that this is contributing

negatively to their overall wellbeing and resilience.

Demographic and other subgroup analyses

Gender

The findings from this study highlight that reported experiences of stress, loneliness,

anxiety and subjective wellbeing differ between genders.

Wellbeing and Resilience

The data reveals that participant’s gender identifying as ‘male’ scored much

higher levels of both personal wellbeing and resilience.

Young people who gender identified as ‘Other’ had lower levels of subjective

wellbeing, with 24% at ‘high risk’ of low mental wellbeing and depression.

Those who identified as ‘other’ represented 3% of all participants.

Participants who identified as ‘Female’ were almost twice as likely to score

‘high risk’ levels of subjective wellbeing than participants who identified as

‘male’ (8% compared with 4.5%).

Average resilience scores were much higher for young people who gender

identified as Male (71.2) than those who gender identified as ‘Female” (65.5)

and those who gender identified as ‘other’ (57.8). The average resilience

across all genders was below the Victorian average.

Loneliness, stress, and anxiety


Participants who identified their gender as ‘Other’ scored high levels of

loneliness, stress and anxiety. Between 40 and 50% of people who identified

as ‘other’ scored between 70-100% in loneliness, stress and anxiety levels.

The data suggests that participants who identified as ‘female’ and ‘other’

reported higher rates of loneliness, stress and anxiety than their male peers.

Location

The findings from this study show differences in wellbeing and resilience levels,

loneliness, stress, and anxiety, per region of the Blue Mountains

Wellbeing and Resilience

Participants living in the Lower Blue Mountains showed lowest rates of

resilience (65.7). Just over a quarter of participants residing in the Lower

Mountains are vulnerable to low mental wellbeing and depression.

Participants residing in the Upper Mountains showed lowest levels of personal

wellbeing (average score 73.7), but highest rates of resilience (average score

74.4). Just over 30% of participants residing in the Upper Blue Mountains are

vulnerable to low mental wellbeing or depression.

Participants residing in Mid Mountains showed highest scores in personal

wellbeing, and mid-range score for resilience. 25% of young people living in

Mid Mountains are vulnerable to low mental wellbeing and depression.

Loneliness, Stress and Anxiety

Participants residing in Upper Mountains reported slightly higher instances of

loneliness (29%) compared to Lower Mountains (28.5%). Participants residing

in Mid-Mountains reported lowest rates of loneliness (23.3%).

Participants residing in Upper Mountains experienced slightly higher instances

of stress (41.3%) than those residing in the Lower Mountains (40.2).

Participants residing in Mid-Mountains reported lowest rates of stress (36.9)

Participants residing in Upper Mountains reported higher instances of anxiety

(40.5%) than participants residing in Lower Mountains (35.7%), and Mid

Mountains (35.4%),

Age


Wellbeing

Average Wellbeing scores were highest for participants aged 12-13 (78.8)

This is above the national average of 75.7

Average wellbeing scores reduced to 73.7 for 14 to 15 year olds, and 73.9 for

16 to 19 year olds.

8% of participants aged 14 – 15 reported scores indicating high risk of low

mental wellbeing and depression. This was higher than the other age groups.

5.8% of Participants aged 12-13, and 6% of participants aged 16-19 reported

scores indicating a high risk of depression / low mental wellbeing.

Resilience

Average Resilience scores were highest for ages 14-15 (70 points).This age

group also reported scores indicating a high risk of low mental wellbeing.

Average resilience scores for participants aged 12-13 was 67.1, and for

participants aged 16-19, average resilience scores was 66.1. All age groups

reported scores below the average for young people in Victoria (75 points).

Loneliness, stress and anxiety

Levels of loneliness increased the older participants were. 16.8% of

participants aged 12-13 reported experiencing high rates of loneliness

compared to 25.1% of participants aged 14-15, and 28.9% of participants

aged 16 to 19.

Stress increased remarkably for participants, the older they were. For

participants aged 16 to 19, over half reported experiencing high levels of

stress.

High stress levels were reported across all age groups, however were least

for participants aged 12-13 (28.9%).

Anxiety grew for participants as age increased. 46.6% of participants aged 16-

19 reported high rates of anxiety, compared with 37.9% of participants aged

14-15, and 27.1 % of participants aged 12-13.

Social support and connection are paramount to feelings of

personal wellbeing


The findings from this study highlight social support, for example from family

and friends, as important to the wellbeing of young people in the Blue

Mountains, with young people who feel that they can “Yes definitely “ access

support from another person when in need reporting above average personal

wellbeing.

In contrast, those that have limited access to social support report lower levels

of subjective wellbeing and resilience.

Being a member of a sporting or recreation group was found to associate with

higher levels of subjective wellbeing and resilience.

Participants were less likely to be a member of a sport or creation group as

their age increased. This was across all genders, however the decline for

participants identifying as ‘Female’ was much steeper (a decline of more than

50%).

Subjective wellbeing, stress, anxiety and loneliness

General feelings of loneliness were found to have a stronger negative

influence on personal wellbeing than stress or anxiety.

Approximately 1 in 4 young people in the Blue Mountains reported a very high

level of loneliness (a score of 70 or above). This score increased for

participants as their age increased. 1 in 3 participants aged 16-19 reported

high levels of loneliness. This also increased depending on the gender of the

participant. Almost 1 in 2 participants who gender identified as ‘Other’

reported high rates of loneliness.

Conclusions

Young people in the Blue Mountains have a level of subjective wellbeing that reflects

the normative range for the Australian Adult population (between 73.9 and 76.7

points). Despite the generally high levels of subjective wellbeing, there are certain

subgroups who scored lower levels of subjective wellbeing. These include

participants who identified their gender as ‘other’ and ‘female’, those who are aged

14 and 15, and those who reside in the Upper Mountains.


There was a strong theme throughout the study of community connectedness, with

participants scoring highest on this domain of the PWI, and using words such as

‘supportive’ ‘loving’ and ‘caring’ to describe their friends, family and community.

Average satisfaction with support from ‘friends’ and ‘family’ was relatively high, with

73.4 percent and 78.3 percent respectively. By contrast, satisfaction with support

from ‘neighbours’ was low. This is similar to the findings in Victoria and is likely to

reflect contemporary societal trends where neighbours are considered as

‘geographically proximal others’ (VicHealth, 2015). For those without strong social

networks, both subjective wellbeing and resilience levels dropped.

Loneliness, stress and anxiety were experienced at a much higher rate as age

increased. For participants aged 16-19, 1 in 2 were currently experiencing very high

levels of stress, 1 in 3 were experiencing high rates of loneliness, and 46.6% were

experiencing high rates of anxiety.

This report highlights the importance of other factors relating to personal wellbeing

and resilience such as supportive relationships, gender, age, and social and

community connectedness, and will provides baseline data that will serve to guide

the Stronger Families Alliance future actions and measurement.

references

Appendices

Tables

survey of resilience and wellbeing · young people in the blue mountains scored lower than average...

Documents